Fashion and the Buddha: What Buddhist Economics and Mindfulness Have to Offer Sustainable Consumption

Abstract

While consumers increasingly expect fashion companies to be bastions of social and environmental causes, they also aspire for fashion in ways known to erode human well-being, evidencing an ethics–behavior gap. The purpose of this conceptual article is to explore how Buddhist economics (BE) and mindfulness could narrow this gap; a spiritual consciousness making consumer ethics more consequential. Classical economic theory is contrasted with BE, a moral framework, including moderation and nonviolence. Mindfulness practice is explored as a practice used to temper consumption. It is concluded that on the topics of human nature, self-identity, and the role of possessions, fashion epitomizes human suffering, from a Buddhist standpoint. This article’s contributions include educational guide points for consumers, a proposed definition of mindful clothing consumption, and identification of theoretical blind spots in fashion consumer behavior research considerably in need of attention to better understand the relationship between clothing and human well-being.

Keywords

Buddhist economics mindfulness mindful consumption sustainable consumption fashion

Our primary spiritual location is in the thick of things, smack in the middle of the endless round of craving and discontent, morally responsible to it (we are called to work against it) and morally responsible for it (in the sense of participating in it).

Barnhill (2004)

In a recent report, fashion industry experts portrayed their field as “superficial, irresponsible, unsustainable, and/or unethical”; an image problem stemming from the fast fashion business model and its global nature (Pederson & Andersen, 2015, p. 318). Volatility now demarcates the fashion economy from earlier decades (Business of Fashion [BoF], & McKinsey & Company, 2019; Hertzman, 2018), wielding a multitude of concerns about our future access to clean air, water, soil, and other natural resources (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017; Quantis, 2018). The industry’s capacity to manipulate consumers to eschew such worry in the name of expression and status is cunning (Horton, 2018). Industry’s remote interest in meaningfully addressing its excesses and externalities (Lehmann et al., 2018, 2019; Pederson & Andersen, 2015) now rests against a backdrop of growing consumer attention to its dark side (BoF & McKinsey & Company, 2019; Lehmann et al., 2019). Fashion consumers increasingly expect clothing companies to be bastions of social and environmental causes and provide exemplary transparency of their activities. Amid these aspirations also lurk other expectations for more variety, newness, and affordability delivered at an ever-faster pace (Binns, 2018; BoF & McKinsey & Company, 2019): desires known to erode human well-being (Cooper, 2017). Seemingly, as the quote above suggests, fashion consumers recognize a moral responsibility to hold the industry accountable without a complete awareness of their own complicity. McNeill and Moore (2015) affirm that consumers find it difficult to deploy even their best ethical intentions when it comes to fashion. Horton (2018) suggests that this is a pivotal moment when consumers must fully confront this dilemma. In this conceptual article, I explore a potential new chapter of consumer awareness and experience: a spiritual type of consumption practice that closes the ethics–behavior gap.

One need not peer far into popular culture to recognize growing ambition for well-being and self-awareness among consumers reflected in trends like “clean” eating, the tiny house movement, and even yoga, signaling aims to live better, smaller, and more simply. More specifically, popular American television shows like Hoarding: Buried Alive and documentaries like Minimalism highlight excess consumption and the consequent clutter that has become a mainstay in consumerist culture, as well as its negative influence on well-being (Brown & Zsolnai, 2018). When Marie Kondo—the professional organization consultant and author of The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up—launched her television show, Tidying Up, enthusiastic viewers responded by unloading the byproducts of their excess consumption on secondhand donation centers like Goodwill, overwhelming such centers with a deluge of virtually unusable goods (Pannett & Hoyle, 2019). Kondo (2014) recommends, as outlined in her book, a complete discard of those things that do not “spark joy,” a “tidying” of things retained, and storage methods to ensure continued engagement and a positive relationship with one’s belongings. The KonMari method is a spiritually inspired technique, underpinned by mindfulness and the Japanese religion Shinto (Dilloway, 2019). The fervent uptake of Kondo’s approach by the public certainly invites other spiritually aligned methods that could offer consumers a way to confront their lifestyles.

Buddhist economics (BE), which shares many tenets with religions like Shinto, is situated within a broad debate about the role of spirituality in the economic domain, providing a reflection point about the consequences of unfettered human desire and the role of possessions in human well-being (Drechsler, 2019; Welford, 2007; Zadek, 1993). Derived from Buddhist scripture (Payutto, 1994) and developed over the last 40–50 years (Brown & Zsolnai, 2018), BE considers how moderation and nonviolence can be embedded in consumption experience, which requires mindfulness to enact (Brown, 2015; Mick, 2017; Wintrobe, 2019). In contrast, traditional economic theory is propelled by the cultivation of insatiable desires, self-interest, and pleasure maximization: a paradigm that places the marketplace at the heart of all social problem-solving (Daniels, 2005; Wintrobe, 2019; Zsolnai, 2007). Problems are addressed by buying goods and services, excluding those who cannot participate in the marketplace and ignoring consumptive experiences occurring beyond satisfaction (Brown, 2017; Mick, 2017; Payutto, 1994). Stirling (2014) argues that there is little empirical evidence that modern economic theory delivers a public good and ample evidence of the multifarious ways it works against it. BE offers a moral framework to foster mindfulness, promoting improved self-management of consumptive desires (Mutakalin, 2014) to reduce human suffering and enhance well-being (Wintrobe, 2019).

The purpose of this conceptual article is to explore how BE and mindfulness could expand emerging consumer awareness with a spiritual consciousness, making enactment of their ethics more consequential. Practically, I offer educational guide points for consumers to mobilize the ethics they seem to exhort; manifesting these ethics in consumption practice assuredly poses a transformational mechanism for industry change. Theoretically, I highlight blind spots in fashion consumer behavior research and suggest inquiry to illuminate the relationship between clothing consumption and human well-being. Mick (2017) argues that the field of consumer psychology, firmly rooted in traditional economics, has failed to consider alternatives to consumerist culture, more frequently studying the role of memory, preferences, and attitudes that inform purchase choices. Fashion theory is permeated with classical economic thought, often discounting aspects of experience without economic outcomes. Fashion theorists have developed a scholarship of the ego (e.g., distinction, status, conformity) that mostly ignores experiences that occur after or instead of clothing acquisition. Even scholars who have studied the ethics of behavioral alternatives continue to couch this exploration in the context of buying things (Chan & Wong, 2012; Lundblad & Davies, 2016; Manchiraju & Sadachar, 2014; McNeill & Moore, 2015; Štefko & Steffek, 2018). I extend this work by holistically viewing the consumer and consumption aspects to include use and disposal, as well as abstention. Further, BE and mindfulness are used to inform a proposed definition of mindful clothing consumption, providing a theoretical starting point for future investigations.

Literature Review

Buddhism

Buddhism is a mind-based science (Mick, 2017; Puntasen, 2007), both philosophical and ethical (Daniels, 2005) and the most psychological of spiritualties (Mick, 2017). This 2,600-year-old tradition (Magnuson, 2007) stems from the teaching of an enlightened sage, Siddhartha Gautama, referred to as Gautama Buddha or the Buddha. Its primary thrust is the cessation of suffering, called dukkha, by eliminating desire and attaining enlightenment or one’s true potential, called nirvana (Ash, 2007; Payutto, 1994; Schumacher, 1973). Morality is its linchpin, focusing on the elimination of wants and the development of human character (Ash, 2007; Mutakalin, 2014; Pace, 2013; Zsolnai, 2007).

Buddhism manifests most practically in the Noble Eightfold Path, which includes three components focused on good intention, conduct, and quality of mind (Daniels, 2005): concentration/contemplation (right effort, mindfulness, and concentration), spiritual practice or ethical conduct (right speech, action, and livelihood), and wisdom (right view or understanding, intention or decision; Kovács, 2014; Lennersfors, 2015). Buddhism is intensely focused on the individual (Alexandrin, 1981; Wintrobe, 2019), drawing one’s awareness to the levers of their daily habits. What is “right” refers to what is “truly beneficial, healthy, or wholesome” for the individual, deemed so by one’s awareness (Magnuson, 2007, p. 277). Although Buddhism is often perceived in the West as a meditative escape from a capitalistic system, it more accurately provides tools to courageously examine discomfort and recognize one’s own plentitude (Lennersfors, 2015; Thich, 2019), not to disconnect from the world (Lennersfors, 2015; Wintrobe, 2019). Buddhism squarely deals with the ego, one’s sense of self used to distinguish from others; the development of the ego is commonly believed to be part of the maturation process, though Buddhists generally regard it as an instrument of great suffering (Mick, 2017).

Happiness and human suffering

The marketplace has transformed our conception of happiness to mean maximal pleasure wrested from utility (Puntasen, 2007), while Buddhists correlate happiness with wellness, termed sukha: a reduction in suffering (e.g., peace, tranquility), not necessarily the inflation of pleasure (Puntasen, 2007). Humans experience pain or unpleasant feelings that stimulate a search for relief, increasing desire and a search for short-term reprieve (Ash, 2007; Brown, 2017; Puntasen, 2007). Marketplace solutions to these feelings, however, are inadequate to sustain pleasure because gains in prosperity and gratification via conditions or things are surprisingly short-lived (Brown, 2017; Wagner, 2007). Self-interested or ego-driven desire is, therefore, considered the root of suffering, and the anecdote is freedom from it rather than its satisfaction (Stirling, 2014; Wagner, 2007). Buddhists maintain that the “happiness problem” is ignorance about suffering’s real causes and cure, and resolving this ignorance alleviates suffering (Ash, 2007, p. 209; Mick, 2017; Wagner, 2007).

For Buddhists, to suffer is to be human (Barnhill, 2004; Kovács, 2014; Stirling, 2014). This is summarized succinctly in The Four Noble Truths, described by Daniels (2005) as a type of diagnosis: life is suffering, desire causes suffering, relieving desire relieves suffering, and the conduit to this relief is practice (Daniels, 2005; Stirling, 2014; Zsolnai, 2007). Mick (2017) further illuminates these truths with The Three Marks of Existence: suffering, impermanence, and no self. Suffering is derived from physical and mental disquiet, change, or causal chains (e.g., karma) often beyond our control. Impermanence, termed annica, regards the fundamentally transient nature of life that often works against our best efforts at security and stability. No self, or annata, is the idea that, contrary to popular psychology, there is no separate, independent, and lasting self, and attachment to what one mistakes as the self (or ego) causes great suffering. Alternatively, one may recognize their interdependence with other things to find a more substantive state of existence (Mick, 2017; Pryor, 1990; Zsolnai, 2007). One’s objectives, mindset, and behavior may be evaluated according to this framework, making it highly relevant to economics, therefore, it is where BE comes to life (Daniels, 2005).

Traditional (Classical) Economics Versus BE

At the heart of the Western economy is traditional or classical economic theory, which portrays a rational actor who considers choices based on personal preferences, values, and constraints (e.g., price, income), seeking to maximize utility from goods and making choices on the assumption of complete and accurate information (Puntasen, 2007; Wintrobe, 2019). Controlled by scarcity, the scheme requires choices with opportunity costs (Stirling, 2014). Add a division of labor, specialization, and competition, and a system of perfect productivity and efficiency emerges (Wintrobe, 2019). Here labor is a cost for the supplier and a distraction from leisure for the worker (Daniels, 2005); thus, the nature of work is an obligation that both supplier and worker strive to minimize (Schumacher, 1973; Stirling, 2014). The most affordable goods are produced by a sophisticated system of specialized workers performing rote and efficient tasks. Goods that cater to consumer preferences and taste are sold at the lowest price to benefit the largest number, evidencing a public good (Welford, 2007). Ethics appear only to affirm self-interests, not a collective good (Stirling, 2014; Zsolnai, 2007). Marketing schemes underpinned by this theory employ social comparison to perpetually stimulate desire (Drechsler, 2019), utilizing messages and images that purposely misrepresent information (Mutakalin, 2014). Consumption is key to happiness and the focal point of life (Stirling, 2014; Wintrobe, 2019), the ultimate goal being maximum satisfaction (Brown & Zsolnai, 2018; Welford, 2007).

Many argue that this theory is dependent upon satisfaction never occurring and the assumptions of consistent demand and limitless growth (Daniels, 2005; Harvey, 2013; Mutakalin, 2014), which Stirling (2014) argues is how materialism becomes central in consumers’ lives. Despite this model’s lack of validation (Stirling, 2014), it remains largely unchallenged though heavily criticized (Welford, 2007). A chief criticism is that it perpetuates the idea that humans exist to be happy (Welford, 2007). Further, materialism is a simplistic response to complex life problems, and this tact leads to a spiritual deficit steeped in unmet expectations (Kovács, 2014; Welford, 2007).

If one sought a conception of life without consumption at its seat, there resides BE (Brown, 2015). In this context, happiness (e.g., wellness) is situated in the spiritual rather than economic realm, and economic activity is conceived to aid peace and tranquility rather than sensual pleasure, if negotiated the “right way” (Puntasen, 2007; Wagner, 2007). Happiness is considered a byproduct of developing one’s true potential, leading to a moral and worthwhile life (Brown, 2017). BE is not a theory or an economic system but a strategy or philosophy that can be applied to economic experiences (Alexandrin, 1993; Drechsler, 2019; Zsolnai, 2007). Diametrically opposed to classical economics, BE embodies the practice of “bounded rationality,” respecting the oft imperfect nature of information and the limits of human cognition and time required to discern information. Instead of reliance on rational choice and satisfaction maximization, the attainment of “satisfactory solutions” responsive to time and context, or life’s complexities, is sought (Drechsler, 2019; Kovács, 2014, p. 758; Wagner, 2007). BE’s usefulness in contemporary society is educational, incorporated into modern economic settings to benefit individual decision-making (Alexandrin, 1993).

Tenets of BE

E. F. Schumacher, in his book Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered (1973), interpreted Buddhist ethics (e.g., love, compassion, sympathy, equanimity) for economics. Alexandrin (1993) notes that BE was conceptualized by Schumacher to mean the “minimization of demand and careful management of supply processes” (p. 7). Schumacher’s theoretical influence on BE has been most impactful regarding the ideals of simplicity, scale, and nonviolence (Brown & Zsolnai, 2018; Drechsler, 2019; Lennersfors, 2015). Schumacher (1973) particularly focused on the employment of Right Livelihood, a component of the aforementioned Eightfold Path, which favors earning a living without harm or injustice to others (Daniels, 2005; Pryor, 1990). The Thai monk and scholar Venerable Payutto (1994) more comprehensively illuminated the philosophy for personal consumption. From Schumacher, Payutto, and other scholars, the tenets of moderation and nonviolence appear key in consumption activity.

Moderation

Buddhists distinguish between two types of desire: tanha, a craving or ambition for sensual pleasure and an associated restlessness, insatiable because it is grounded in ignorance about the true source of happiness; and chanda, a desire for well-being, attainable because it is found in the wisdom of impermanence (Mutakalin, 2014; Wagner, 2007; Welford, 2007). BE punctuates reduction of tanha and an increase of chanda through moderation, called the Middle Way: A position between asceticism and excessive indulgence in which one is aware of the “right” amount of consumption necessary for well-being (Drechsler, 2019; Payutto, 1994; Welford, 2007). Accumulation of material wealth for its own sake inflates the ego and is a mechanism for tanha and, therefore, dukkha (suffering; Drechsler, 2019; Mick, 2017; Puntasen, 2007). Satisfaction with external objects is shortchanged in a number of ways. One adjusts to temporary satisfaction and is compelled to seek a higher level of satisfaction to once again experience pleasurable feelings (Brown, 2015; Stirling, 2014). Regret is experienced when individuals must make one choice from an overabundance of choices in the marketplace (e.g., opportunity costs; Stirling, 2014). Or, one’s happiness is dimmed via comparison to the achievements of others (Ash, 2007), and as a result, individuals often board a “hedonic treadmill” of overwork and relationship neglect for a shot at the implausible (Ericson et al., 2014; Magnuson, 2007; Puntasen, 2007). The virtue of frugality is at a premium in the deliberate management of desire and accumulation to realize sufficiency (Daniels, 2005; Drechsler, 2019; Welford, 2007). Mick (2017) argues that this mindset requires reduced attachment to and dependence upon material goods. Further, the Middle Way connotes appreciation for what one possesses while resisting the urge to use them to serve the ego (Harvey, 2013; Mick, 2017). When one can reduce their desire and excesses, they can more practically access their true self, including their creativity and natural talents (Brown, 2017; Welford, 2007; Zsolnai, 2007). This approach does not command a vow of poverty or even compromise of comfort or fortune (Drechsler, 2019; Pryor, 1991; Puntasen, 2007) because fulfillment of basic human needs (food, clothing, shelter, and medicine necessary for survival) is requisite to spiritual development (Daniels, 2005; Drechsler, 2019; Zadek, 1993). The Middle Way is not blind to aesthetics or material aspects of life, as these are thought to nourish the human spirit. Rather, material possessions may be used to marshal one’s talents for a meaningful life (Brown, 2017).

Nonviolence

Economic principles concern human beings, society, and nature, and BE requires a harmonious relationship among all three (Payutto, 1994). Therefore, the search for sufficiency is marked by consumption that does no harm to oneself or others, a perspective of nonviolence informed by interdependence (Mick, 2017; Payutto, 1994; Schumacher, 1973). This tenet involves karmic considerations regarding the long-term benefits and consequences of consumptive practice, as well as the nature of wealth and work (Pryor, 1991). Karma, or a causal chain, is set in motion by decisions, good and poor, that result in implications for oneself and others (Payutto, 1994). The ego’s desire for individual accumulation of wealth disconnects us from others. Connection with and compassion for others reduces the prominence of the ego and encourages development of the aforementioned no self (Puntasen, 2007; Zsolnai, 2007). When concern for others guides economic decisions and action, one may prosper without imposing a debt to others (Ash, 2007; Brown, 2015; Daniels, 2005). Improving awareness in decision making also safeguards against risk (Noy, 2011). Further, BE does not perceive wealth as categorically unwholesome but evaluated on the well-being it yields (Daniels, 2005; Harvey, 2013; Schumacher, 1973). Therefore, wealth must not be earned through a vocation that embodies harm or injustice for others (Pryor, 1991; Wagner, 2007), as only genuine and virtuous hard work brings happiness (Payutto, 1994). Nonviolence and interdependence hold that all economic decisions, such as those based on greed or vanity, result in a boomerang effect: Harm done to people and the environment decreases overall economic performance (Brown, 2015; Brown & Zsolnai, 2018; Payutto, 1994). Conversely, economic decisions made with generosity or compassion improve economic performance (Brown, 2015; Payutto, 1994).

On Human Nature, Self-Identity, and Fashion as a Possession

Some of the most fundamental distinctions between classical economics and BE regard human nature and self-identity, both of which arguably frame consumer behavior research. Endless desire is a central element of human nature from both perspectives, though BE views this as a springboard for enlightenment while classical economics positions it as a mechanism of rational behavior employed in the marketplace (Stirling, 2014). The latter portrays humans as following rational self-interests to improve utility (e.g., pleasure) by accumulating material goods: a competitive endeavor (Puntasen, 2007; Wagner, 2007). Humans, and especially fashion consumers, are viewed as agents of lack who come to the marketplace with unceasing wants, the economy supplying a response with no real appreciation of the agent. BE views human nature more holistically, beyond economic transactions, to include satisfaction of more than material desire (Pace, 2013), examining motives and intentions at a much deeper level (Wagner, 2007). Instead of viewing humans as receptacles of deficiency, all are seen to embody an equal supply of the “Buddha nature” (e.g., basic goodness; Wagner, 2007, p. 334). BE’s concern is to bring that nature to complete realization, irrespective of economic consequence (Thich, 2019).

Related to human nature is self-identity. A popular theory of consumer behavior is that possessions serve identity development via symbolic meaning; the self extends to include one’s belongings and express identity (Belk, 1988; Elliott, 1997). Contrary to the Buddhist belief that humans essentially desire sukha (wellness), fashion theorists posit that humans desire to create an individual identity through a process of self-production that is made clearer not by one’s level of consciousness but by their appearance (Kaiser, 1997; Piacentini & Mailer, 2006; Stone, 1962). A dualistic self–other paradigm portrays the self as something independent and distinct from others (Immergut & Kaufman, 2014). Of great relevance in this article is the work of postmodern theorists who depict the consumer as exercising choice and agency to produce the self by selecting aesthetic and visual symbols in the marketplace. Clothing is selected to portray this self (Piacentini & Mailer, 2006; Stone, 1962), which has been purported to carry communicative messages, such as distinction (e.g., Bourdieu), gender (e.g., Entwistle, Davis, Teeslon), and group affiliation (e.g., Polhemus, Evans). Social groups determine the value of symbols by acknowledging some and not others. Through social interaction, personal evaluations are made to hone the identity (Grubb & Grathwohl, 1967; Kaiser, 1997). The self is continually under threat of external acceptance or rejection, an attachment to others that yields unease (Immergut & Kaufman, 2014). Because individuals are thought to be inherently concerned about their self, they are incentivized to perennially update their appearance to ensure affiliation to important reference groups (Grubb & Grathwohl, 1967; Stone, 1962).

Although identity development is considered an important freedom and generally accepted as good, Buddhists view this development as less about becoming a self and more about being one (Mick, 2017; Thich, 2019). Becoming, called bhava, is related to tanha (craving) and comes with a restless, expectant energy that creates dukkha (suffering; Immergut & Kaufman, 2014; Thich, 2019). The process of extending the self to include an accumulation of fashion goods to symbolize one’s identity is fundamentally inessential, even deleterious. Further, it is questionable whether ownership is even possible since an independent, unchanging self-identity is considered a delusion (Mick, 2017; Pace, 2013). Given the concept of no self, ownership creates attachments and dependencies when one attempts to make something concrete that is actually impermanent (Brown, 2015; Mick, 2017). Realistically, self-identity is unpredictably dynamic (Mick, 2017; Pace, 2013; Rudd, 2015) and may more usefully contribute to one’s spiritual development, in which possessions are considerably less essential to identity construction (Pace, 2013). BE marks a shift from “having” as the pipeline of utility to also considering the positive gains of doing, being, relating with, and even giving (Puntasen, 2007).

The view of no self is not without criticism, as some scholars have qualms with the notion that consciousness can exist without a self (Rudd, 2015). Responsively, Pace (2013) suggests a type of spiritual transformation where the self can be present without being treated as reality. The self may still be used to understand consumer behavior but beyond ego-centric cravings (Pace, 2013; Rudd, 2015). Thus, materiality lives within a broader landscape of human existence, where self-identity may be used to propel ethical positions. It is less about working to eliminate the self or one’s distinctive personality and more about seeking the truth about reality by transcending the ego (Immergut & Kaufman, 2014; Pace, 2013; Rudd, 2015). When we are more attuned to the true self, rather than egoist desires and preferences, we may enjoy material things without the effects of attachment (Brown, 2015).

Fashion and Human Suffering

In many ways, fashion epitomizes suffering. The industry has decreased its time-to-market and infinitely expanded its symbol assortment to continually stimulate desire in the name of self-identity (Cervellon & Wernerfelt, 2012; Joy et al., 2012). Cooper (2017) argues that this proliferation of choice (e.g., novelty) decreases social welfare under three conditions: when a consumer pays an artificially low price for a fashion good, irrespective of externalities (e.g., environmental damage, worker risk); when a consumer chooses a less durable product (e.g., fast fashion), and when the item unsurprisingly fails, experiences regret; or, when a consumer procures fashion for status rather than multiple use, conspicuous consumption being wasteful. Further, artificially low prices and goods of diminished quality, which are increasingly perceived as disposable (Birtwistle & Moore, 2007; Fletcher, 2008), are produced on the backs of the world’s vulnerable for cheap (Cline, 2012; Schor, 2013)—to the tune of a waste quagmire and an array of environmental hazards (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017).

At the macrolevel, consumers’ needless acquisition and accumulation of cheap fashion underwrites human suffering, manifest in the barbarous treatment of the supply chain’s workforce and the imminent environmental calamity upon us, which will limit human access to resources requisite for well-being (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017; Pederson & Andersen, 2015). The concept of interdependence would suggest that this consumption practice yields broad misery, and perhaps our demise. At a more microlevel, other suffering is embodied in the acquisition, use, and disposal of fashion goods lacking the capacity to live out a vibrant, useful life, an experience riddled with regret and the emotional aftereffects that attend short-term indulgences (Brown, 2017; Stirling, 2014). Also, identity development as a social process creates what Von Busch and Bjereld (2016) argue is a fashion culture that ratifies “systemic exclusion and oppression,” “bullying and microagressions” (p. 91), termed “fashion violence.” Suffering is undoubtedly a natural byproduct of social comparison and rejection experienced in the pursuit of self-identity (Ash, 2007; Immergut & Kaufman, 2014).

Mindfulness

BE requires a complete awareness of one’s ethics and a spiritual response to emergent desires in daily activities (Mutakalin, 2014; Noy, 2011). Essential to its enactment is mindfulness, a daily practice cultivated within the Eightfold Path (Brown, 2015; Stirling, 2014; Wintrobe, 2019). Mindfulness is an inner and outer awareness of the present moment with openhearted attention to, without judgment, emotions or information that may or may not be preferable (Ericson et al., 2014). This mental development is requisite to “right action,” a pathway to well-being that requires no consumption or materiality (Puntasen, 2007), permitting engagement in the present moment, slowing inner chatter, and heightening awareness of the mind (Dhandra, 2019; Magnuson, 2007; Zadek, 1993). Mindfulness is observing annica (impermanence), annata (no self), and dukkha (suffering; Mick, 2017), devoting “appropriate attention: that which brings transformation and healing” (Thich, 2019, p. 429). There are many examples of mindfulness practice, the most common being meditation (Wintrobe, 2019). Barnhill (2004) suggests focusing intentionally on consumptive patterns with a technique developed by activist Joanna Macy that brings attention to cravings, attuned to our role as both creator and casualty of desire. Whatever the approach, Wintrobe (2019) explains that the arrival at some pure state of consciousness, free from “framing,” is implausible, though one’s mindfulness is relative to the time devoted: “you can have a little Zen or a lot” (p. 20).

Mindfulness and sustainable consumption

Bahl et al. (2016) argue that mindlessness has become the inclination of consumer society: “contemporary consumers sleepwalk through a fog of impulses, habits, addictions, compulsions, and decision biases” (p. 198). Mindfulness affords liberation from cognitive habits associated with adaptation, choice regret, and social comparison (Kovács, 2014; Mick, 2017; Zsolnai, 2007). With clearer understanding of dukkha’s real causes, dependencies are seen with greater objectivity, suspending cognitive ruts that do not yield true well-being (Ash, 2007; Mick, 2017). BE originates at motives and intention (Wagner, 2007), and mindfulness permits clarification of values that leads to intentional conduct (Bahl et al., 2016; Ericson et al., 2014). What we intend to accomplish with consumptive practice, realistic or unrealistic, becomes clearer with mindfulness (Pryor, 1991; Wagner, 2007). Good intention leads to good conduct, and good conduct leads to clearer understandings about one’s conduct (Puntasen, 2007). Consumerism is more easily avoided, and desires become more naturally oriented to true happiness, denoted by spirituality (Noy, 2011; Payutto, 1994).

Fischer et al. (2017) contend that mindfulness promotes sustainable consumption behavior in at least four ways: disrupting routines by reducing the propensity for unconscious choices; narrowing the attitude–behavior gap by lowering inattentiveness; increasing nonmaterial values by reducing engagement in greed, delusion, and so on; and increasing prosocial behavior via compassion. Some evidence suggests that trait mindfulness and even meditation positively influence decision making and factors such as pro-environmental behavior, prosocial behavior, and frugality for certain consumers (Dhandra, 2019; see Fischer et al., 2017 for comprehensive review). However, understanding of how mindfulness influences consumption decision making and behavior in daily life is still developing (Bahl et al., 2016; Fischer et al., 2017; Mick, 2017). There are currently two proposed definitions of mindful consumption.

Sheth et al. (2011) define mindful consumption as “temperance in acquisitive, repetitive, and aspirational consumption at the behavioral level, ensuing from and reinforced by a mindset that reflects a sense of caring toward self, community, and nature” (p. 30). This care includes a desire for true well-being, the development of relationships, and appreciation of the intrinsic, instrumental, and aesthetic value of nature. These authors specifically criticize acquisition that exceeds one’s basic needs (e.g., for survival), such as repeatedly purchasing disposable products, like those exhibiting planned obsolescence, and aspirational purchasing (e.g., conspicuous consumption), all inherent in fashion consumption.

Bahl et al. (2016) recently extended this work with the addition of body awareness and a richer description of attributes that facilitate mindful consumption, including nonjudgment, compassion, and open-mindedness: “paying attention, with acceptance, to internal stimuli (bodily sensations, emotions, and thoughts) and external stimuli and their effects on the consumption process” (p. 200). Unlike their predecessors, these authors explore potential mindful consumption practices. For example, attention paid to thoughts and body sensations experienced in materialistic contexts (e.g., shopping) and developing a notion of self not dependent on materiality. One could also apply a similar awareness during disposal, observing one’s excesses, exploring ways to reduce, and better appreciating the value of existing resources. Both definitions are consistent with scholars who link Buddhism, BE, and mindfulness with consumptive practice, bringing attention to internal and external influences in material contexts, contemplation of the hopes and risks of economic activity, and an appreciation for the limitations of materiality (Brown, 2015; Harvey, 2013; Payutto, 1994; Stirling, 2014; Thich, 2019).

Discussion and Implications

Previous researchers exploring ethics and fashion consumption have maintained a myopic focus on buying decisions and, more concerning, make little endeavor to propose ethics or a method for their deployment. Many fashion theorists place the ego and the marketplace at the center of human existence, an idea that is a recipe for psychological disquiet, according to BE. Identity development as a social process is a peril to humans and other living things by way of the social and environmental costs required to supply the resources for self-production. BE takes a holistic approach, seeing consumers less as economic acquisitionists and more as beings situated in a socioeconomic context. This approach promotes an appreciation for human aspirations that fall inside and outside the material or economic realm, such as the desire for well-being (Brown, 2015; Pace, 2013). BE and mindfulness are poised to help consumers confront their lifestyles and address scholarly blind spots in fashion consumer behavior research.

The Practical

BE’s penultimate instruction is to reduce desire and increase well-being by pursuing a clear ascertainment of reality through heightened consciousness. Fashion consumers must fully confront the ego’s desire for identity transformation and become attuned to the true self, diminishing their attachment to materiality (Brown, 2015). Between a vow of poverty and excess accumulation resides the “right” amount of materiality that “satisfies the desire for true well-being” (Harvey, 2013, Payutto, 1994, p. 41). When fashion goods facilitate one’s talents, with gratitude for but not attachment to, one may satisfy their clothing needs without stimulating tanha (craving; Brown, 2015). How much fashion is sufficient? What use and disposal practices can manifest moderation and nonviolence? This is the new wisdom each individual must cultivate within. Perhaps one dresses responsive to their vocation to facilitate their true potential or carefully repairs a clothing item as an expression of gratitude. Consumers who pay attention to their thoughts, emotions, and body sensations while shopping may also find it easier to return the trendy but less needed garment to the rack (Bahl et al., 2016), acting with temperance (Sheth et al., 2011). Notably, one need not take up residence at a monastery or exorcise fashion interest. Material goods and aesthetic qualities may activate creative energy and be enjoyed without being rooted in status or belonging, as longing for such breeds dukkha (suffering; Harvey, 2013). Intentionally selecting a beautiful piece of clothing, treasuring its wear on the body, and consciously understanding the material object’s ultimate impermanence may yield the nonattachment necessary to avoid tanha and therefore dukkha.

Interconnectedness prompts reflection about how consumptive practice invites harm to oneself or others. When one purchases a fashion item produced in a sweatshop, a hazardous karmic chain of events are set in motion (Brown, 2015). Similarly, much of fashion change is evoked by consumer esteem deficits (e.g., suffering) via social comparison or rejection (Immergut & Kaufman, 2014; Von Busch & Bjereld, 2016). Fashion consumers already display some ambition to do no harm by way of their awareness of the industry’s negative influence on worker well-being and ecological health. BE advocates deeper awareness about one’s choices and fashion’s embodied suffering. For instance, nonviolence addresses fashion’s dependence on a supply chain workforce that struggles to meet their basic needs and holds less power in the marketplace (Brown, 2015; Harvey, 2013). Mindful awareness may prompt one to select a Fair-Trade garment as a more compassionate choice over other alternatives, as there is greater assurance that production did not put humans at risk. Consumers may consider the benefits or burdens of clothing disposal options (landfill, donation, handing down) and potential consequences for oneself and others. Further, one may consciously abstain from acquisition, as interconnectedness presumes that doing with less allows others to have more (Alexandrin, 1981). Or, acquisition may be replaced altogether with nonmaterial activities that more durably contribute to well-being, like helping a friend, playing a game with family, or watching a beautiful sunset.

Buddhism focuses immensely on motives and intention (Daniels, 2005; Wagner, 2007). What one intends to achieve with the acquisition of a new dress, the careful maintenance of a treasured coat, or the landfill disposal of an old accessory, should be the very focus of mindfulness practice. Bahl et al. (2016) emphasize the deployment of compassion within mindful consumption, implicating nonjudgment and open-mindedness to guide reflection on behavior. These authors emphasize the importance of the mind’s management of external stimuli (e.g., objects, people, environment), which occurs internally (e.g., thoughts, feelings), and how these stimuli affect them. Sheth et al. (2011) argue that mindful consumption should include moderate acquisition of goods that exceed one’s basic needs, only serve to display one’s status, or are disposable or become quickly obsolete. Although both conceptions of mindful consumption offer guidance, only one attempts to holistically address consumption beyond buying, and neither definition is necessarily rooted in BE. Both neglect a key element highly relevant to fashion: the ego, which is central to the fruitless quest for an independent self that lies at the heart of restless desire and its consequent suffering. Without service to one’s true potential, BE cannot be realized. The critical exploration of the “right” amount of materiality and gratitude for what one already possesses is also ignored. For most fashion consumers, the consumptive dilemma is not about achieving one’s basic clothing needs for human survival but rather identifying one’s personal level of sufficiency, perhaps identifying unnecessary materiality (Drechsler, 2019; Mutakalin, 2014). This insight will inevitably be made unambiguous over time through mindfulness practice. Accordingly, mindful clothing consumption is aptly defined as: attention to internal and external stimuli involved in material contexts, considering potential harm manifest in the acquisition or abstention, use practices, or disposal methods of clothing, seeking sufficiency in one’s clothing needs and gratefully caring for and using clothing in the service of one’s true potential rather than the ego.

There is a growing number of educational resources available to fashion consumers to aid in sustainable clothing consumption practice (e.g., mygreencloset.org, sustainyourstyle.org), many of which encourage personal style, choosing quality and more sustainable materials, and using safer disposal methods. It is argued here that the adoption of these new habits could be made more robust with approaches that spark a more existential consciousness, such as BE and mindfulness practice. Practices mindfully chosen and enacted with an attunement to the true self versus the ego, and therefore, a clear view of one’s values, will likely experience greater longevity in one’s clothing consumption repertoire (Bahl et al., 2016; Ericson et al., 2014). Educational initiatives for sustainable fashion consumption should prioritize meditation exercises that explore desire and the ego’s role in each consumption phase, integrating moderation and nonviolence in reflection on purchasing, use, and disposal experience. This may be most effectively added to existing programming, though new outreach curriculum could be focused on teaching mindfulness practice with exercises that prompt consumers to delve into fundamental ideas such as sufficiency, nonmaterial satisfaction, and gratitude.

The Theoretical

Considering the fashion industry’s environmental and social woes, scholars have a responsibility to explore alternatives, especially those that offer consumers a defense against consumerism. As well-being and mindfulness are increasingly part of the popular vernacular, so must consumer theory evolve to include an understanding of experiences with and without economic outcomes. Research projects are emerging, such as Kate Fletcher’s practices of use (craftofuse.org) in which experiences beyond acquisition are investigated, situating consumers in a more mindful and empowered position within the fashion system—one that may better foster human potential. Work along these lines is not fully developed or related in a way that builds theory, not unlike the historical foci of consumer psychology (Mick, 2017). Indeed, if one considers self-identity a troublesome and illusory product of the mind, much of fashion consumer behavior theory must be reconceptualized. Let us begin the theoretical development of mindful clothing consumption through a lens of BE to more clearly illuminate the relationship between clothing and human well-being.

Research is needed to understand how a spiritual practice like mindfulness precipitates in a clarification of values that encourages sustainable clothing consumption practice (Pace, 2013), for example, studying how mindfulness aids consumers in navigating egoist marketing promises (Bahl et al., 2016; Mick, 2017). Mick (2017) suggests examining populations that may be especially vulnerable to such, which in a fashion context surely includes young women. Bahl et al. (2016) recommend research questions that examine the role of mindful consumption on the relationship between self-concept and attachment to material goods or its impact on materialism, while Mick (2017) suggests investigating the adverse effects of attachment. Examination of the potential negative repercussions of fashion involvement or emotional attachment is absent from fashion studies. Further, theory could be developed to understand how one makes decisions to abstain from or acquire new fashion in the service of one’s true potential, rather than ego, and how this practice is mediated by mindfulness. Among the abundance of fashion studies about purchase intention, fashion theorists could investigate the extent to which motives to engage in various alternative business models, like collaborative consumption, correlate with aspirations in other aspects of life with deeper meaning, like the desire for well-being. Experiences with fashion not involving the ego are nearly wholly opaque from a research standpoint.

Payutto (1994) argues that classical economic theory too closely couples satisfaction with ownership, as if economic choices do not impact satisfaction in other domains of existence (e.g., individual, society, environment). The story seemingly ends at possession, and theory examines little after desires have been addressed. Yet satisfaction may be gained by giving something up or giving a gift without expectation of reciprocity (Payutto, 1994). Mick (2017) suggests that there is a scarcity of theoretical development regarding what he intimates as the “aftermath” of ownership (p. 124). Theory could be developed regarding how fashion consumers anticipate (or not) the time, effort, and resources required to maintain an ever-expanding wardrobe of low-quality goods and the suffering implicated therein (Mick, 2017)—for example, the regret of garment failure, inevitable and costly replacement, harm done to employees within the system of cheap fashion, or the fateful disposal one will make sooner than later: an environmental impact. Bahl et al. (2016) suggest researchers examine how mindful consumption may play in the care and maintenance of possessions, including reuse, repair, upcycling, and disposal decisions. Ethical choices play out across the fashion consumption process, and few researchers have acknowledged its spiritual burdens. Although BE is not an economic theory, its philosophy can be used by scholars to illuminate underdeveloped areas of research, including the study of those who regularly practice mindfulness or adopt the technique via educational programming.

Conclusion

BE has been most intensely focused on the individual’s capacity to change thinking and behavior to healthier ends (Mutakalin, 2014), though Welford (2007) suggests that institutions within the socioeconomic structure could certainly follow this “peaceful individually based revolution” (p. 345). BE and mindfulness offer consumers a spiritual approach to eradicate the waste and harm within the fashion economy that they are both “morally responsible to…and for” (Barnhill, 2004, p. 59). Classical economic theory itself indicates that the marketplace caters to consumer preferences; thus, a new consciousness could be a powerful mechanism for industry change (Magnuson, 2007). There are likely many other ways mindful clothing consumption can be conceptualized through the investigation of the “craving and discontent” embedded within real consumption practice (Barnhill, 2004, p. 59). A beginning has been made here at a lens on fashion consumption that catalyzes nirvana (human potential), permits the infusion of morality, and offers a more appropriate relationship with clothing. BE assuredly invites research foci with deeper scrutiny to consumer experiences beyond economic outcomes and the ego.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to express gratitude for the training and support provided by the Buddha Mind Monastery in Oklahoma City, OK, during the development of this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Cosette M. Joyner Armstrong

References

Alexandrin

(1981). Toward a Buddhist economics. Planning Review, 9(5), 28–32.

Alexandrin

(1993). Elements of Buddhist economics. International Journal of Social Economics, 20(2), 3–11.

Ash

(2007). Happiness and economics: A Buddhist perspective. Society and Economy, 29(2), 201–222.

Bahl

Milne

G. R.

Ross

S. M.

Mick

D. G.

Grier

S. A.

Chugani

S. K

Chan

S. S.

Gould

Cho

Y.-N.

Dorsey

J. D.

Schindler

R. M.

Murdock

M. R.

Boesen-Mariani

(2016). Mindfulness: Its transformative potential for consumer, societal, and environmental well-being. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 35(2), 198–210.

Barnhill

D. L.

(2004). Good work: An engaged Buddhist response to the dilemmas of consumerism. Buddhist-Christian Studies, 24, 55–63.

Belk

R. W.

(1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

Binns

(2018, February 20). Why aren’t millennials buying conscious clothing? Sourcing Journal. https://sourcingjournal.com/topics/fashion-trends/millennials-not-buying-conscious-clothing-78833/

Birtwistle

Moore

C. M.

(2007). Fashion clothing-where does it all end up? International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 35(3), 210–216.

Brown

(2015). Buddhist economics: An enlightened approach to the dismal science. Challenge, 58(1), 23–28.

10.

Brown

(2017). Buddhist economics: An enlightenment approach to the dismal science. Bloomsbury Press.

11.

Brown

Zsolnai

(2018). Buddhist economics: An overview. Society and Economy, 40(4), 497–513.

12.

Business of Fashion, & McKinsey & Company. (2019). The state of fashion 2019. Business of Fashion. https://www.mckinsey.com/∼/media/McKinsey/Industries/Retail/Our%20Insights/The%20State%20of%20Fashion%202019%20A%20year%20of%20awakening/The-State-of-Fashion-2019-final.ashx

13.

Cervellon

M.-C.

Wernerfelt

A.-S.

(2012). Knowledge sharing among green fashion communities online: Lesson for the sustainable supply chain. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16(2), 176–192.

14.

Chan

T. Y.

Wong

C. W.

(2012). The consumption side of sustainable fashion supply chain: Understanding fashion consumer eco-fashion consumption decision. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16(2), 193–215.

15.

Cline

E. J.

(2012). Over-dressed: The shockingly high cost of cheap fashion. Penguin.

16.

Cooper

(2017). Consumer well-being in a future of accelerating novelty. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 27, 315–335.

17.

Daniels

P. L.

(2005). Economic systems and the Buddhist world view: The 21st century nexus. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 34, 245–268.

18.

Dhandra

T. K.

(2019). Achieving triple dividend through mindfulness: More sustainable consumption, less unsustainable consumption and more life satisfaction. Ecological Economics, 161, 83–90.

19.

Dilloway

(2019, January 22). What white, western audiences don’t understand about Marie Kondo’s “tidying up.” Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marie-kondo-white-western-audineces_n_5c47859be4b025aa26bde77c

20.

Drechsler

(2019). The reality and diversity of Buddhist economics. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 78(2), 523–560.

21.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). A new textiles economy: Redesigning fashion’s future. Ellenmacarthurfoundation.org. http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications

22.

Elliott

(1997). Existential consumption and irrational desire. European Journal of Marketing, 34(4), 285–296.

23.

Ericson

Kjønstad

B. G.

Barstad

(2014). Mindfulness and sustainability. Ecological Economics, 104, 73–79.

24.

Fischer

Stanszus

Geiger

Grossman

Schrader

(2017). Mindfulness and sustainable consumption: A systematic literature review of research approaches and findings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 544–558.

25.

Fletcher

(2008). Sustainable fashion and textiles design journeys. Earthscan.

26.

Grubb

E. L.

Grathwohl

H. L.

(1967). Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behaviour: A theoretical approach. Journal of Marketing, 31(1), 22–27.

27.

Harvey

(2013). Buddhist reflections on “consumer” and “consumerism.” Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 20, 334–356.

28.

Hertzman

(2018, May 7). Hello Alexa, how do we fix fashion? Sourcing Journal. https://sourcingjournal.com/topics/retail/the-gucci-gaffe-why-too-many-brands-are-modeling-their-business-on-a-fluke-105190/

29.

Horton

(2018). Just use what you have: Ethical fashion discourse and the feminisation of responsibility. Australian Feminist Studies, 33(98), 515–529.

30.

Immergut

Kaufman

(2014). A sociology of no-self: Applying Buddhist social theory to symbolic interaction. Symbolic Interaction, 37(2), 264–282.

31.

Joy

Sherry

Jr Venkatsh

Wang

Chan

(2012). Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion Theory, 16(3), 273–296.

32.

Kaiser

S. B.

(1997). The social psychology of clothing: Symbolic appearances in context (2nd ed.). Fairchild.

33.

Kondo

(2014). The life changing magic of tidying up. Ten Speed Press.

34.

Kovács

(2014). The theoretical foundation of Buddhist management practices. Journal of Management Development, 33(8/9), 751–762.

35.

Lehmann

Arici

Boger

Martinez-Pardo

Krueger

Schneider

Carrière-Pradal

Schou

(2019). Pulse of the fashion industry: 2019 Update. Global Fashion Agenda and The Boston Consulting Group. http://www.globalfashionagenda.com/Pulse-2019-Update/

36.

Lehmann

Tärneberg

Tochtermann

Chalmer

Eder-Hansen

Seara

J. F.

Boger

Hase

Von Berlepsch

Deichmann

(2018). Pulse of the fashion industry. Global Fashion Agenda and The Boston Consulting Group. https://globalfashionagenda.com/download/3700/

37.

Lennersfors

T. T.

(2015). A Buddhist future for capitalism? Revising Buddhist economics for the era of light capitalism. Futures, 68, 67–75.

38.

Lundblad

Davies

I. A.

(2016). The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(2), 149–162.

39.

Magnuson

J. C.

(2007). Pathways to a mindful economy. Society and Economy, 29(2), 253–284.

40.

Manchiraju

Sadachar

(2014). Personal values and ethical fashion consumption. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 18(3), 357–374.

41.

McNeill

Moore

(2015). Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: Fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(3), 212–222.

42.

Mick

D. G.

(2017). Buddhist psychology: Selected insights, benefits, and research agenda for consumer psychology. Buddhist and Consumer Psychologies, 27(1), 117–132.

43.

Mutakalin

(2014). Buddhist economics: A model for managing consumer society. Journal of Management Development, 33(8/9), 824–832.

44.

Noy

(2011). Thailand’s sufficiency economy: Origins and comparisons with other systems of religious economics. Social Compass, 58(4), 593–610.

45.

Pace

(2013). Does religion affect the materialism of consumers? An empirical investigation of Buddhist ethics and the resistance of the self. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 25–46.

46.

Pannett

Hoyle

(2019, March 6). Marie Kondo isn’t sparking joy for thrift stores. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/marie-kondo-persuaded-you-to-jettison-your-junk-thrift-stores-sayenough-11551889124

47.

Payutto

P. A.

(1994). Buddhist economics: A middle way for the marketplace. Buddhadhamma Foundation.

48.

Pederson

E. R. G.

Andersen

K. R.

(2015). Sustainability innovators and anchor draggers: A global expert study on sustainable fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 19(3), 315–327.

49.

Piacentini

Mailer

(2006). Symbolic consumption in teenagers’ clothing choices. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(3), 251–262.

50.

Pryor

F. L.

(1990). A Buddhist economic system in principle: Non-attachment to worldly things is dominant but the way of the law is held profitable. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 49(3), 339–349.

51.

Pryor

F. L.

(1991). A Buddhist economic system-in practice: The rules of state policy making of the ideal kings sought a ‘middle way’ between right and left. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 50(1), 17–32.

52.

Puntasen

(2007). Buddhist economics as a new paradigm towards happiness. Society and Economy, 29(2), 81–200.

53.

Quantis. (2018). Measuring fashion: Environmental impact of the global apparel and footwear industries study. https://quantis-intl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf

54.

Rudd

(2015). No self? Some reflections on Buddhist theories of personal identity. Philosophy East and West, 65(3), 869–891.

55.

Schor

J. B.

(2013). From fast fashion to connected consumption: Slowing down the spending treadmill. In Osbaldiston

(Ed.), Culture of the slow (pp. 34–51). Palgrave MacMillan.

56.

Schumacher

E. F.

(1973). Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. Harper Perennial.

57.

Sheth

J. N.

Sethia

N. K.

Srivinas

(2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(21), 21–39.

58.

Štefko

Steffek

(2018). Key issues in slow fashion: Current challenges and future perspectives. Sustainability, 10(7), 1–11.

59.

Stirling

(2014). Buddhist wisdom as a path to a new economic enlightenment. Journal of Management Development, 33(8/9), 812–823.

60.

Stone

G. P.

(1962). Appearance and the self. In Rose

(Ed.), Human behavior and social processes: An interactionist approach (pp. 86–118). Houghton Mifflin.

61.

Thich

P. H.

(2019). A Buddhist approach to consumption. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(5-6), 427–450.

62.

Von Busch

Bjereld

(2016). A typology of fashion violence. Critical Studies in Fashion & Beauty, 7(1), 89–107.

63.

Wagner

H.-G.

(2007). Buddhist economics—Ancient teachings revisited. International Journal of Green Economics, 1(3/4), 326–340.

64.

Welford

(2007). Examining, discussing and suggesting the possible contribution and role of Buddhist economics for corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Green Economics, 1(3/4), 341–350.

65.

Wintrobe

(2019). Adam Smith and the Buddha. Rationality and Society, 31(1), 3–39.

66.

Zadek

(1993). The practice of Buddhist economics? American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 52(4), 433–445.

67.

Zsolnai

(2007). Western economics versus Buddhist economics. Society and Economy, 29(2), 145–153.